The Many Benefits, for Kids, of Playing Video Games

Think twice before limiting your kids’ video play; then don’t.

Quite a few parents have asked me, at talks I've given, about the advisability of their limiting their kids' computer play. Others have told me that they do limit their kids' computer play, or their total daily "screen time," in a tone that seemed to suggest that any reasonable parent would do that.

People who have been reading this blog can probably guess my reaction. I have a very high opinion of children's abilities to make good choices about how to use their free time, as long as they really have choices. Some kids go through long periods of doing what seems like just one thing, and then some adults think there's something wrong, because they (the adults) would not make that choice. But in my experience, if kids are really free to play and explore in lots of different ways, and they end up playing or exploring in what seems to be just one way, then they are doing that because they are getting something really meaningful out of it. For a nice example of this, you might watch the film on the home page of the Sudbury Valley School website, where a young man describes his year of doing almost nothing but computer play.

It is always a mistake, I think, to tell kids what they must or must not do, except in those cases where you are telling them that they must do their share of the chores around the house or must not do things that hurt you or other people. Whenever we prevent our kids from playing or exploring in the ways they prefer, we place another brick in a barrier between them and us. We are saying, in essence, "I don't trust you to control your own life." Children are suffering today not from too much computer play or too much screen time. They are suffering from too much adult control over their lives and not enough freedom (see essay on rise of depression and anxiety).

Kids who are really free know what is best for them, especially concerning how they should spend their free time. Every kid is different, just as every adult is, and we can't get into their heads and find out just what they are getting out of something that we don't understand. I know well a kid who, for years, spent hours per day watching television shows that I thought were really disgustingly dumb; but, over time, I discovered that she was getting a lot out of them. They were making her think in new ways. She understood all the ways in which the shows were dumb, at least as well as I did; but she also saw ways in which they were smart, and she analyzed them and learned from them. They contributed greatly to her abilities as an actress (she eventually had major parts in high-school plays), because she acted out the parts vicariously, in her mind, as she watched. They also contributed to her fascination with certain aspects of human psychology. She now wants to go into clinical psychology as a career.

I've also known kids who spent huge amounts of time reading--just sitting and reading, "doing nothing!" for maybe 10 hours a day. There were always some kids like that, even when I was a kid. I could never understand why they would want to just sit and read when they could go fishing with me instead. What a waste of time. However, I've never known a parent to limit their kids' reading time. Why is it any better to limit TV or computer time than to limit book-reading time? Why do we worry about a kid's spending maybe 4 or 5 hours a day at a computer screen, doing what he wants to do, but don't worry about the same kid sitting at school for 6 hours a day and then doing homework for another couple of hours--doing what others are forcing him to do? I ask you to consider the possibility that the kid is learning more valuable lessons at the computer than at school, in part because the computer activity is self-chosen and the school activity is not.

Computers are the most important tools of modern society. Why would we limit kids' opportunities to play with them?

Why would we want to limit a kid's computer time? The computer is, without question, the single most important tool of modern society. Our limiting kids' computer time would be like hunter-gatherer adults limiting their kids' bow-and-arrow time. Children come into the world designed to look around and figure out what they need to know in order to make it in the culture into which they are born. They are much better at that than adults are. That's why they learn language so quickly and learn about the real world around them so much faster than adults do. That's why kids of immigrant families pay more attention to the language spoken by their new peers, in the new culture, than to the old language spoken by their parents. That's also why, whenever there's a new technological innovation, kids learn how to use it more quickly than their parents do. They know, instinctively, what they must learn in order to succeed.

Why do we keep hearing warnings from "authorities"--including the American Academy of Pediatricians--that we must limit kids' computer play? Some of the fear mongering comes, I think, from a general tendency on the part of us older folks to distrust any new media. Plato, in The Republic, argued that plays and poetry should be banned because of their harmful effects on the young. When writing came about and became technically easier, and was enthusiastically seized upon by the young, some of their elders warned that this would rot their minds; they would no longer have to exercise their memories. When printed novels became available to the masses, many warned that these would lead the young, especially girls and young women, to moral degeneracy. When televisions began to appear in people's homes, all sorts of dire warnings were sounded about the physical, psychological, and social damage they would cause.

Video games have been under attack by the fear-mongers ever since they first appeared, and the attacks have not diminished. If you Google around the Internet using harmful effects of video games as a search phrase, you will find all sorts of frightening claims. One site warns that video games can cause depression, physical aggression, poor sleep, somatic complaints, obesity, attention disorders, and ... the list went on. The only malady they seemed to have left out was acne.

The most common complaints about video games are that they (1) are socially isolating, (2) reduce opportunities for outdoor activities and thereby lead to obesity and poor physical health, and (3) promote violence in kids, if the games have violent content. On the face of it, of course, the first two of these claims should be truer of book reading than of video gaming. Concerning the third claim, I don't see any obvious reason why pretend murder of animated characters in video games should be any more likely to provoke real murder than, say, reading Shakespeare's account of Hamlet's murder of his stepfather. Yet we make kids read Hamlet in school.

Research refutes the frightening myths about harmful effects of computer games.

If you look into the actual research literature, you find very little if any evidence supporting the fear-mongers claims, and considerable evidence against those claims. In fact, systematic surveys have shown that regular video-game players are, if anything, more physically fit, less likely to be obese, more likely to also enjoy outdoor play, more socially engaged, more socially well-adjusted, and more civic minded than are their non-gaming peers.[1] A large-scale study in four cities in Holland showed--contrary to what I assume was the initial hypothesis--that kids who had a computer and/or a television set in their own room were significantly more likely to play outside than were otherwise similar kids who didn't have such easy and private access to screen play.[2] A study by the Pew Research Center concluded that video games, far from being socially isolating, serve to connect young people with their peers and to society at large.[3] Other research has documented, qualitatively, the many ways that video games promote social interactions and friendships.[4] Kids make friends with other gamers, both in person and online. They talk about their games with one another, teach one another strategies, and often play together, either in the same room or online.

Concerning violence, meta-analyses of the many studies designed to find effects of violent video games on real-world violence have concluded that, taken as a whole, there is precious little or no evidence at all of such effects.[5] It's interesting, also, to note that over the decades in which violent video gaming has been steadily rising, there has been a steady and large decline in real-world violence by youth.[6] I'm not about to claim that the decline in real-world violence is in any significant way caused by the rise in violent video games, but, there is some evidence that playing such games helps people learn how to control their hostility. In one experiment, college students were presented with a frustrating mental task and then were assessed for their feelings both of depression and hostility. The significant finding was that regular players of violent video games felt less depressed and less hostile 45 minutes after the frustrating experience than did otherwise similar students who didn't play such games.[7]

I have to admit that I personally hate graphic depictions of violence, in games or anywhere else, but I claim no moral virtue in that. I'm just squeamish. My wife and step-kids, who are every bit as nonviolent in real life as I am, tease me about it. They talk about screening movies for me, and they have gotten used to going to certain movies without me.

Video games have been shown to have many positive effects on brainpower.

Quite a few well-controlled research studies have documented positive effects of video games on mental development. Repeated experiments have shown that playing fast-paced action video games can quite markedly increase players' scores on tests of visuospatial ability, including tests that are used as components of standard IQ tests.[8] Other studies suggest that, depending on the type of game, video games can also increase scores on measures of working memory (the ability to hold several items of information in mind at once), critical thinking, and problem solving.[9] In addition, there is growing evidence that kids who previously showed little interest in reading and writing are now acquiring advanced literacy skills through the text-based communication in on-line video games.[10]

When kids are asked, in focus groups and surveys, what they like about video games, they generally talk about freedom, self-direction, and competence.[11] In the game, they make their own decisions and strive to meet challenges that they themselves have chosen. At school and in other adult-dominated contexts they may be treated as idiots who need constant direction, but in the game they are in charge and can solve difficult problems and exhibit extraordinary skills. In the game, age does not matter, but skill does. In these ways, video games are like all other forms of true play.

The special benefits of MMORPGs

Over time, video games have become increasingly complex and multifaceted. Perhaps the most interesting games today are the so-called Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs), such as World of Warcraft, which are even more social than were previous video games and offer endless opportunities for creativity and problem solving.[12]

In these online games, players create a character (an avatar), which has unique physical and psychological traits and assets, and, with that character, enter a complex and exciting virtual world that is simultaneously occupied by countless other players, who in their real-life forms may be sitting anywhere on the planet. Players go on quests within this virtual world, and along the way they meet other players, who might become friends or foes. Players may start off playing solo, avoiding others, but to advance to the higher levels they have to make friends and join with others in mutual quests. Making friends within the game requires essentially the same skills as making friends in the real world. You can't be rude. You have to understand the etiquette of the culture you are in and abide by that etiquette. You have to learn about the goals of a potential friend and help that individual to achieve those goals. Depending on how you behave, players may put you on their friends list or their ignore list, and they may communicate positive or negative information about you to other players. The games offer players endless opportunities to experiment with different personalities and ways of behaving, in a fantasy world where there are no real-life consequences for failing.

Players in these games can also join special-interest groups called guilds. To join a guild, a player (or, more accurately, the player's avatar) must fill out an application form, much like a job application, explaining why he or she would be a valuable member. Guilds generally have structures that are similar to companies in the real world, with leaders, executive boards, and even recruitment personnel. Such games are, in many ways, like the imaginative sociodramatic games of preschool children, but played in a virtual world, with communication by online text, and raised up many notches in sophistication to fit the interests and abilities of the older children, teenagers, and adults who play them. Like all sociodramatic games, they are very much anchored in an understanding of the real world, and they exercise concepts and social skills that are quite relevant to that world. In fact, a study commissioned by the IBM Corporation concluded that the leadership skills exercised within MMORPGs are essentially the same as those required to run a modern company.[13]

-----

So, to those who want my opinion about whether they should or shouldn't limit their kids' computer play, my answer is SHOULDN'T. But what is your opinion? What experiences have you or your kids had with such play? Do you know of any good research that would justify a decision to prevent kids from playing video games to their hearts' content? This blog is a forum for discussion, and your views and knowledge are valued and taken seriously, by me and by other readers. Make your thoughts known in the comments section below.

As always, I prefer if you post your comments and questions here rather than send them to me by private email. By putting them here, you share with other readers, not just with me. I read all comments and try to respond to all serious questions. Of course, if you have something to say that applies only to you and me, then send me an email.

I have long been a fan of video games and how they can contribute to cognitive development. After all, I myself come from an adolescence spent predominantly navigating the worlds of Final Fantasy and other similar Role Playing Games.

While reading this article, I recalled a study discussed in a class I took on Aging, which showed that video games can be an effective form of cognitive training for those suffering from mild forms of cognitive impairment. The issue was, however, that learning a specific skill in a specific context did not necessarily mean that the skill would generalized to other contexts. I think this same point is applicable to online video-gaming: it could be that social skills developed in these online worlds (e.g., making new friends and applying for jobs) would not transfer to real-world situations. In which case, I would feel justified in encouraging (note: not forcing) a kid to attend socials and resume-clinics over spending hours at home in front of a computer. Thoughts?

My 10 year old son frequently fills out applications for online accounts without assistance. He also knows how to make purchases online, fill out questionnaires, register product warrantees, and enjoys online quizzes. He is experimenting with his signature, although he does not write in cursive, because he wants to sign a birthday check to reimburse money he borrowed from us to purchase "the most technologically advanced video game in the world!" - Spyro Skylanders.

He worked odd jobs for his grandparents (once,8 hours of work,after 3 hours of sleep, to earn $4), and saved his allowance for five months,all in order to reach his goal of purchasing a Nintendo 3DS on his tenth birthday. Today, when his sister got her 3DS, he immediately set about helping her set it up with Netflix and the apps she wanted.

Given the freedom to choose what they like, they go for a lot of the current kids favorites - and they watch a lot of game shows, court shows, jewelry and home renovation and cooking shows, LOTS of PBS Kids and PBS shows, the Weather Channel, NASA Channel, vintage cartoons, nature and other documentaries.....

One of my son's favorite lines of late is, "Mom, I was doing a little research, and - ---- " followed by some detailed information I usually didn't know.

At Christmas, he sent me Internet links to the items he wanted for his gifts, after researching them and finding them at good prices. He definitely saved me a great deal of money and frustration, and we both knew he would love his presents.

He is learning some Japanese, to understand the culture in his anime and Pokemon games, and to more effectively trade Pokemon with some Japanese-speaking co-players. He is learning to create animations, and has made three simple Javascript games, just because he wanted to.

He has never attended school, and, since he was 7, we have been an unschooling family. His love for and freedom to use screens in any manner he chooses have led to many, many skills he can carry forward into adulthood, already.

Screens and technology are his element. When we limited them, he was less happy and less engaged and confident in himself than he is today.

My nephew spent a lot of time on the computer playing games as he was growing up. A lot of time was spent on the not very childish http://www.waroftheworldsgame.com/ My niece on the other hand, spent her time playing on http://www.jumpstart.com/parents/games which is mostly learning games. Now that they are in their teens, both are fine. My nephew still spends a lot of time gaming and now wants to be a game designer. Both the kids are well adjusted to life around, except for one thing. My nephew wants an electronic device after about 3-4 hours of going without one whereas my niece is perfectly happy not having one for many days. Sometimes I wonder if what they played made a difference.

I grew up well acquainted with video games and screen time limits. I did not until recently become explicitly aware of the roots of my interest. I have realized personally, in addition to other's comments to me on the matter, that playing video games is more than just a manner of putting myself in charge of myself but also serves as a refuge from the control of others. An observation of me growing up with limited screen time would likely include mention of an apparent frustration associated with any day I chose to play video games and a relative calm when I did not. While observing such frustration I would also display an elevated level of irritability associated with social interactions, mainly with family. More recently, while visiting home for the holidays and away from my usual game systems, the same observation would be made in reverse. My family finds me irritable and often frustrated by the absence of my normal pass-times.

As I have grown beyond parental ability to limit my access to video games, this negative mood is more readily associated with a choice not to play the available games. Thus I would conjecture, in agreement with the article, that mood is more dependent on the presence or absence of choice than the presence or absence of certain stimuli. As I continue my studies, I will keep these thoughts in mind for future research.

It seems to me the question is not whether to limit video games or not en masse, but to take seriously the needs of individuals in context. While it is true that the data show an overall lack of negative effects, that does not preclude the possibility that some people might develop addictive behavior patterns that are unhealthy. They are probably a minority, but their experiences of suffering due to video games is a valid concern. Such individuals may need active intervention on the part of caring people in their lives to get out of those patterns of behavior.

The key is to ensure that parents are an active and involved part of the caring community that surrounds kids. Parents are often in the best position to observe patterns of effects in their children's lives. If they observe patterns of dysfunction then it is in everyone's interest that they take active measures to intervene to correct the dysfunction. And to encourage the functional patterns. In any case, ideally they would act in a manner that would preserve the autonomy and expectations of competence of their children.

Hi Don,
I agree that children (or adults) may develop a dysfunctional obsession with computer games, as they might with any other activity (for me it's comfort eating or Tetris!). To encourage them to stop the self-soothing activity, though, is treating the symptom not the cause. Self-soothing or compulsive activities are there to help the powerless child cope with something that is causing discomfort but they have no control over. It's not fair to take away or shame them over their comfort activity (as happens all too often) unless you can identify and help them remove the source of their distress. Parents will often be unable to do this as the child will probably not be able to identify the cause of their distress, which is likely to be intrinsic to the way the family operates, and not easily visible. Life is difficult and all parents are imperfect to some degree, but that's ok because we are designed to have coping mechanisms which will see us through if we are allowed to use them.

My recommendation was for a caring community of people to intervene when dysfunctional behavior is observed in children. I maintain that this is exactly what needs to be done and I trust those who become concerned about some behavior they observe to take the necessary time and expend the necessary energy to assess the situation to decide what intervention is necessary. I made no assumption about what that would entail, I simply pointed out that caring for children requires action to be taken. You are correct that the causes should be investigated and whatever course of action is taken should address the causes and not just the symptoms.

I also emphasized the community of caring people should INCLUDE the parents. That necessarily implies that the parents are parts of a larger set of people involved.

So I stand by exactly what I wrote and take your point that the process should be directed to altering the causes of the behavior, not merely symptoms.
--
Enjoy,

I'm curious. Don Berg have you read the book "Sensory Integration and the Child" by A. Jean Ayers?

I admin an Unschooling Special Needs support group online and this topic comes up a lot. Is my child gaming too much?

What I find is that parents who see the negatives of technology are also very unaware of how to provide for their childrens' sensory needs. Special Needs children have a harder time self-regulating so they need support. Peter Gray usually talks about the population of children who are average or good at self-regulation.

What we usually advise is that instead of "taking something away" which can feel like punishment, add intense sensory experiences and build up a daily sensory diet. This will give a child options to learn to self-regulate, rather than just being obedient to or restricted by some external norm claiming "for your own good".

Instead of understanding and providing for a child's needs, parents have been advised to by professionals to "normalize" the child through coercive therapies and coercive schooling. Coercion is antithetical to developing self-agency and self-regulation.

Efrain Bleiberg talks about his theory of mentalizing, which is noncoercive. In the theory, sensitive children need double the match rate of typical children in order to form the same level of attachment which leads to a resilient personality. When we take away a child's form of self-soothing, we gaslight them. The message is "what feels good to you is bad". This is a mismatch which the child can interpret as "my parent does not want me to feel better" whether that is true or not. The caregiver's help in returning to homeostasis after distress is an atomic transaction of attachment. This is why attachment parents and unschooling parents advocate non-coercion and to follow a child's lead rather than dictating to them. Yes, this method takes longer and a child may exist for longer in what grownups consider "problematic habits". If parents can delay gratification and open their minds to radical acceptance and understanding needs from the child's point of view, aka reflective function, the child will have the opportunity to learn as much self-regulation and self-agency as possible.

My son spends a lot of time playing various games, but more recently he's been spending some of his time researching on the internet for how to play the games and finding out the weak points of the bad guys in the games in advance of having to deal with them. While some might consider that to be cheating, I look at it as developing a useful real-life skill of planning and preparation for how to approach a problem. Now I just have to hope that he'll transfer that skill to other areas as he gets older.

I will start by saying that I have played WoW and other MMOs for a total of 6 years.

Many skills that someone may develop in an MMO could potentially be carried over to real life. I will use competitive Player vs Player here as an example because I believe it is the pinnacle of skill in gaming. In order to perform best in PvP, and thus get the highest ratings which come with various benefits, you need to gain a vast amount of knowledge. You need to know every class (that is a player's combat specialization, warrior, mage, etc) inside out. Once you know everything about your allies and the enemy, such as what behaviors they are likely to engage in, you can formulate strategies to assist/defeat them. These strategies grow in complexity the more players you throw into the equation. In order to perform at the highest level you NEED to be a creative problem solver who can think of new, more efficient, ways to combat certain situations. If you think about it, isn't this exactly what is most important, innovation to get the edge in life? Whether you are thinking up a new way of applying your skills in a game or thinking up a more efficient way of arranging the components of a computer chip. In order to do either properly you need a massive amount of background knowledge, MMOs teach players that by gaining that knowledge and then applying it to it's fullest potential they can be the best.

Disclaimer: Most players of MMOs refuse to acknowledge that they are doing anything wrong and instead insist that the only reason they aren't winning is because of factors they cannot control. But hey maybe eventually they will wake up, I know I was in their boat once upon a time.

I have four young children, two of which are old enough (6 and 7) to play video games. The 6 year old enjoys them much more than the 7 year old, and will play them for 1-2 hours at a time. I do not limit his time (except for when I want the tv!) and he does seem to get bored eventually, but we have also talked explicitly about the value of doing lots of different activities, and he understands that, too. My concern is that we have addiction in our family and having seen the effects, I am concerned that gaming could develop into an addiction. I hear more and more about this, and I have adult friends who suffer from the effects of gaming addiction in their families. I used to play a lot of video games myself as a child, but MMORPGs didn't exist then. I, and almost every adult I know, stopped being interested in video games during high school, but now I see adults being addicted to MMORPGs in their 30s and 40s. Is it not possible that the rewards and real-life substitute of MMORPGs is so much greater than Mario Bros or Pac-Man that they do represent a threat to normal social development? I fear that these new games, because of their world structure and social base, can almost replace real-life interaction in a way that depresses a person's ability to develop life relationships and interests. A quick trip to reddit.com makes me think that young adult men do indeed suffer social isolation because of their gaming, and that they are applying their intelligence to solving game problems that have no net effect on their real/physical lives, nor does it help anyone else. They are pure pleasure, which is not good if seeking it replaces all other real-life activities which may be uncomfortable at first but more rewarding in the end, like dating, volunteering, exercise, etc. It also allows them to live in a world of peers who will not challenge them by virtue of being different or having different needs - hardly conducive for social cohesion or development outside the homogeneous group of MMORPG players. What I'm saying is, because the MMORPGs provide almost every aspect of real life (social interaction, challenge, variety) they are indeed more dangerous than books or poetry, because they allow young men to think they are living life when really, they are hiding from it.

Hi Lillian,
Thank you for this thoughtful comment. The issues you raise deserve a longer, more careful response than I can provide here. I'm planning soon to write a followup post on video game addiction. -Peter

Lillian, I share the same fears as you! I found this website by searching "in defense of video games" because I too am struggling with whether or not to limit my kids' video game time. My 6 year old would play on the computer or XBox all day if I did not intervene. Once a month we allow him to have a "video game sleep-over" with his brothers, and sometimes he creeps into my room at 6am to tell me "goodnight".

I just started homeschooling, so I struggle with the fear that if I lift restrictions, he will never look at his math work again (which he actually seems to enjoy doing when I tell him it's time, but he never chooses to do it on his own).

As if I wasn't concerned enough over my 6yr old being lost to Skylander, my 4yr old and 3 yr old used to LOVE playing with Legos, Play-doh, and other toys. Now they want to play with their older brother whenever they see him in front of a screen.

All this to say, I divorced my first husband when I realized he put more time and energy into his Sim City family than into our own. He created a world where he had the exact same job, the exact same wife, and the exact same hobbies, and he would enter that world after work and never come out to spend time with me. Maybe it was an addiction, or perhaps we just did not "upgrade" fast enough for his pleasure.

So while a huge part of me wants to give into the ideas I have read today (I also read the articles on Evolutionary Mismatch, and cheating in school and Science) and unleash my children to discover their potentials however they feel led, a huge part of me fears that we will all sit down in front of our own screen every morning and let the days slip away while my poor husband trudges to and from work supporting our habits.

While I don't deny that I learn an awful lot while online, I am not exactly producing anything or contributing to society in those moments. If I can barely motivate myself to walk away and DO something... how can I put my faith in the idea that my kids will decide to get up and translate their mad Castle Crashers skills into solving world hunger or even just putting a roof over their own heads someday (and moving out from under mine)?

Good day! I know this is somewhat off topic but I was
wondering which blog platform are you using for this site?
I'm getting fed up of Wordpress because I've had problems with hackers and I'm looking
at options for another platform. I would be
great if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.

I have 10 year old boy/girl twins and I have never limited their computer time. They have been taught from a very young age the potential dangers of internet use, the need to give eyes/body a rest occaisionally, the importance of being well rounded, the body's need for sunshine and activity, etc. Each child was given their own laptop at age 5 and I have been delighted and amazed at the things they have investigated and learned from using their computers freely. Both my children are avid, strong readers, very creative problem solvers, and voracious learners. They know how to find good research via the internet and often use the internet to learn everything they can about subjects as diverse as storytelling to chemistry to cartooning to Conway's Game of Life to Minecraft. My feeling has always been that the computer is the most powerful tool at their fingertips, why would I limit their ability to use it?! I think this freedom will allow them to develop skills and discover strengths that I could not foresee. If the next five years are similar to the past five, I believe my children will be very successful at identifying what their passions are, figuring out life goals and how to achieve them, and trusting their own ability to make choices and decisions about what is best for them.

" except in those cases where you are telling them that they must do their share of the chores around the house".

Mr. Gray- that statement clunked right to the bottom of my Unschooling stomach. Are you saying we shouldn't impose limits unless they are inconveniencing us at home?! I have a feeling that statement caused quite a few Unschooling jaws to hit the floor.

When I had roommates, we frequently asked each other to help out with chores. We came to agreements about who would do what and we'd politely remind each other if one of us neglected a responsibility. It wasn't disrespectful to us as adults (indeed, it was constructive and conducive to a comfortable, peaceful home), so why would it be "deeply disrespectful to a child?"

If adult roommates work together to decide who does what, that is a partnership arrangement, with everyone having (I assume) an equal voice in things, and the rewards are reaped by all.

Chores assigned to children who have no say in them, chores that are designed to make the home meet the parents' standards, and which are not optional ,with parents dictating the timing and adequacy of the work, are not a teamwork arrangement.

These children (many of whom spend their days in schoolrooms they might rather not be in, doing things that adults have deemed necessary, but which numb them, then come home to homework, and then chores.....) are not being treated as partners.

They are being dictated to.

Would you care to be dictated to, with no chance to change things?

Would you want that many of the hours of your life scripted for you, or might you resent that, because, after all, it is your life and your time, and you ought to be able to choose how to spend it?

Children are not less human than adults. Their lives and time are exactly as valuable to them as mine are to me. Their emotions run as deep and true as anyone else's, even if they do not have a voice to say so, within their home or their school.

Assigned and enforced chores also say to kids, quite clearly, that parents do not trust them to take a part in the keeping of the family.

Not only is that disrespectful, it isn't even fair. A child given the freedom to help or not, who feels loved and supported in their life, is very likely to help in ways unique to their character.

My 10 year old son just delivered food to me. Now, he's cooking for his sister.

She just emerged from (yet another!) voluntary bath. She is 7.5.

When I ask them for help , these days, I generally get it, but not always in the degree or fashion I would have expected.

But, just as I would graciously accept a friend's gesture of love and caring, i am learning to respond with the same grace to the help my children offer or agree to give.

Anything that assumes an adult perogative to order children about for adult agendas and conveniences is inherently disrespectful.

If you still cannot see it, imagine being small and powerless and expected to jump at the command of much bigger, more powerful people.

I don't need to imagine it. I lived it. And it did not -ever! - feel like respect, to me.

You're assuming the only way to define responsibilities for a child is to do it in an overbearing, authoritarian manner. I think it's possible to sit down with a kid and describe what needs doing and when in a very respectful way. Heck, I do it with my son all the time. We define his responsibilities and his corresponding allowance. He does additional things unexpectedly sometimes, but he also forgets sometimes. And I remind him of our agreements and his responsibilities.

Nothing about that approach suggests that children are less human than adults. Indeed, it emphasizes that they are human and all humans have responsibilities when they live together.

Since kids are individuals, that means they have different personalities. Some are eager to help out, others not so much. Responding to the latter type with constructive approaches to help them learn about being considerate and helpful is not disrespectful.

And while kids are as human as adults, let's be clear. They aren't adults.

Are we disrespecting kids when we tell them they can't drink or have sex with each other?

I think we underestimate our kids when we don't give them an opportunity to help around the house and contribute in a meaningful way to their own existence. If anything, it is my insistence on doing things myself so they can be done faster or more efficiently that shows disrespect and nullifies their desire to help out. My 3 year old loves doing laundry, my 4 year old loves to cook, and my 6 year old... well... he loves video games. So now when my 6 year old asks me for lunch and I tell him not until we put away the Play-doh he is no longer playing with, I don't think that is in anyway disrespecting him.

We actually had a good conversation just today when he balked at doing something I requested. I asked him if he would like to make his own lunch. He said, "Sometimes, but I like the things you make too." I told him that I don't paricularly enjoy making lunch, but I do it because it is part of my job to make sure everyone gets fed. My sons are learning that everyone in a household has to share in the responsibility (cleaning, cooking, gardeing, etc.) to enjoy the benefits (healthy & tasty meals, video games, internet, toys, etc).

I also believe they should learn to be good stewards of their environment both inside and out. Which includes cleaning up after themselves, and taking care of their planet and their possessions. I don't see how that in any way introduces disrespect into our relationship.

The idea that asking a child to help in the full running of a household is surely less discriminatory than demanding nothing of them - adults sharing a house would not let one party pay no bills, earn no money, and do no tidying.
I was brought up with the understanding that, while I couldn't work, it was only reasonable for me to help with the smooth running of the household that provided for me (and even then, I could see I was getting the sweeter end of the deal what with hot meals, clothes, accomodation, and so forth). I've seen kids who lived with the opposite; with the family income pooled and split per head...but the children had none of the outgoings that the parents did. If you're going to let your children self-direct so completely, surely it only makes sense to share responsibility as well as resources?

It is perfect time to make a few plans for the long
run and it is time to be happy. I have read this put up and if I may just I wish to recommend you some attention-grabbing
issues or advice. Maybe you could write subsequent
articles relating to this article. I desire to learn more things approximately it!

Perhaps I should have been clearer that, in my assumption, family members work out ways to share chores and remind one another to do them when they forget. My wife has no problem reminding me about mine, when I forget or get too busy with other things. I probably should have used the term "reminding" rather than telling. -Peter

Assigning chores is a pretty good way to cheat oneself out of the surprise of having a child volunteer to do, or just go ahead and do, things.

In the past week or so, my no-assigned chores kids have frequently helped to tidy when asked, assisted with dishes and laundry, bathed the dog, cooked, helped with feeding of pets and watereing of pets and plants, chopped firewood with a small axe, brought me coffee, emptied wastebaskets and recycling, redeemed bottles, and gotten the mail.

There might be things I'm overlooking; these are just the ones I remember.

They don't usually mind my asking for their help, although they may choose not to, or choose their own time and way of helping. They are, more and more at 10 and 7.5, understanding what goes into keeping a home, and they are, more and more, helping us tend to more and more of those things.

Peter, I have come to listen to you twice at NEUC and thoroughly enjoyed it both times.

Regarding the "except in those cases" comment, my impression was that the comment meant kids still have real world responsibilities, and that these shouldn't be neglected by their freedom to make other choices (i.e., video games). I raise my kids with the notion that "no one is your slave," that it's a privilege to have mom & dad doing so much for them, and that as they grow they need to gradually take on more responsibility, because some day it will be all on them.

Re: the overall article, it was good to have a lot of this research collated on this topic. I still think balance is key -- that the physical body needs activity as well as sleep; the eyes need a break; and there is value to real-world socialization. But especially in the case of computer usage, I want my kids to learn this tool and new tools as they come along as long as they're interested -- which they both are in different areas. And my younger is a video game fanatic as well, but this doesn't stop him from a lot of physical activity or tremendous creativity.

I like the point of looking to the individual child and seeing if the screen time is improving the quality of their life or diminishing it. This is the bottom line, and I think the most important point to the article is that we have to be careful about how we assess this. Maybe snap judgments about the value of something -- because someone else said so or whatever -- aren't the way to go. Maybe we have to really see how our own children respond over time, and adapt accordingly.

"Concerning the third claim, I don't see any obvious reason why pretend murder of animated characters in video games should be any more likely to provoke real murder than, say, reading Shakespeare's account of Hamlet's murder of his stepfather. Yet we make kids read Hamlet in school."

But generally kids aren't reading Hamlet until high school, while there are kids playing first-person shooter games at 6 and 7. I'm wondering if there's a point at which these games really aren't age-appropriate, or if we can trust that our kids know when a game isn't right for them.

My children, at ages 8 and 5, went with me to see Hamlet in a local park. It's my favorite play, and i am currently writing a novel that features the burning of the Globe Theatre.

My 5 year old was most impressed by the skull and Gertrud's costume and death scene, which she got to talk about with the actress herself. She watched bits of the play, and played, and looked forward to a carousel ride visiting ducks when it ended.

My then- 8 year old son was entranced, standing transfixed through nearly the entire play.

Neither of my children choose to play particularly violent games on a regular basis. There are two Halo games here that were tossed in with a used games system we bought. They've been used a time or two in about a year.

In our experience, kids know what they're ready for, and when.

Just because most schooled children read (instead of seeing the play as it was intended) Hamlet in high school, doesn't mean that is when all kids are ready for it. Some never will be, and hate being forced.

In my high school it was Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, and Julius Ceasar, and some of the sonnets. No Hamlet at all - found that later, through a friend.

My 8 year old was ready for Hamlet. If, at 10, he decides he's ready for a violent - even graphically so - game, I will believe him and support him. If he then asks me to put it in the freezer, as he once did for a too-much Goosebumps book, I will do so without judgment. =)

Hi Laura,
Well, when I was 6 and 7--and even more so when I was 5--we used to shoot each other with cap guns. We'd murder one another dozens of times a day sometimes. We all knew it was pretend. Little kids playing video games all know it is pretend, too. In fact, there's excellent research showing that even 2-year-olds have a clear understanding of the difference between pretend and real and don't confuse the two.
-Peter

“Well, when I was 6 and 7--and even more so when I was 5--we used to shoot each other with cap guns. We'd murder one another dozens of times a day sometimes. We all knew it was pretend. Little kids playing video games all know it is pretend, too.”

The difference is that you and your friends were engaging in “creative play”. Rough and tumble play and creative play have been shone in a number of studies to be very good for mental and physical health, and for developing social skills, physical skills, and executive function.

First-person shooter games have been shown in the laboratory to improve certain cognitive skills but also to increase hostility. Correlational studies find that the more time kids spend in front of the screen, the more likely they are to have poor relations with their parents and peers, and suffer from poor mental health.
It's interesting that a study found that MMORPG games, even violent MMORPG games, did not increase aggression the way other types of violent video games do. MMORPG games involve a lot of socializing, could it be that the socializing neutralizes the effects of the violence?

As you've written about so well, during most of human history, children learned by having the freedom to play with lots of kids of different ages and watching and helping the adults of the tribe. Back then there was just no equivalent to kids spending all day alone inside their hut, passively watching TV or playing video games.

Well said.
I wonder just how much 'funding" mr grey gets from these entities.
The hunter/gatherer correlation was over the top, a fantasy.
Play yes, chores of course. Any unit has structure even loosely knit. We participate in life, not watch others do it for us.

My issue with the first-person shooter games is that the player is rehearsing, hundreds or thousands of times, how to behave in a given situation: the situation of having a loaded gun in hand, and someone to aim at. It's target practice, in some cases with extra points being awarded for kill-shots to the head or chest of the victim.

I have heard (although I don't have references) that rehearsing an activity which needs to be performed in a stressful situation makes it much much more likely that the activity will be performed "automatically" if we encounter the stressful situation. For example, fire drills improve the likelihood of safe exit from the building in case of fire. A gymnast will practise and practise to perfect an acrobatic routine so that in the stress of competition it happens almost without thought.

I worry that by spending many hours practising killing others (in one game my husband used to play, including hostages who were begging for mercy) we switch off our natural empathy and respect for life. Instead we train ourselves to kill, should we ever encounter that situation. Do we want our children to be self-trained merciless killing machines? That is a skill at which I hope my children will never need to be proficient!

I dont understand how you are comparing a physical activity that involves muscle memory at times to a game children play. Games like Halo, you are shooting aliens, which would probably never happen in our life time or possibly, ever. Others like Call Of Duty, where it is actual people and countries fighting, which could be considered over the top. Just keep in mind that an M game is equivlent of a rated R movie, but just reasearch M games that your children are buy, necause alot of them have content that they are familiar with or words they have heard before. So watch them play the game, and if you dont want them to kill animated characters with an animated gun, on a television, then dont.

Thanks for being so articulate about this. You hit a nerve for me around a difficult discussion I am having with my 11 year old son about playing with airsoft guns. I can't get over the disturbing thought that he is becoming comfortable shooting his friends!

My son was 11 when he asked me if he could play dad's first-person shooter game "If I turn off the blood." I told him that if he didn't want to look at blood, he should play a game that didn't involve shooting people with guns. Or he could play it with the blood turned on. He decided he wasn't ready to play it, and found another game that had inanimate target practice. I think we do our children a disservice if we sanitize things too much. But by the same token, if we're sensitive to our kids, we can generally get a sense of what is going to be age-appropriate for them, and it's different on a kid-by-kid basis. Public schools just don't have time to do that.

I disagree with this. Do you refuse to let your son watch Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner unless he has a fresh bit of roadkill on the coffee table? Or how about the A-Team? Remember how they shot constantly at each other for 5 minutes and no one ever got hurt? My point is, if you want every act of violence in Pop culture to show honestly the effects of violence, you're not going to have much to watch, or even read. In Hamlet, how much blood spurts about when characters are stabbed? I guess it depends on the production, but generally not a lot.

I'm assuming that there is actually a setting on the game for blood-free shooting. If not, never mind. I don't know if you consider yourself a radical unschooler, but if you do, seems like it would be fine to let your son try it the way he wants it, and discuss how unrealistic it is at some point.

I agree with all of the points made in the article, and my kids have always been allowed to play computer games and, when they purchased their own Play Station and X Box, video games. I well remember my oldest child sitting on our laps and actually participating in the primitive adventure games of the early 1980s; even though she was tiny, she would sometimes be the one to suggest an action that resulted in more points. For example, in King's Quest, we "went into" a church, expecting to see treasure or someone to talk to - but it was empty. Our toddler piped up with a suggestion: Pray. We got points. (This is especially funny because we had never taken our daughter to church and were raising her in a "none" household--that is, our answer to religious affiliation was "none.")

However, despite the fact that I agree with the article, it needs to be said that SOME kids do run into trouble with social isolation and depression. I don't think that video games cause the problems, but it may be part of what the worried parent notices. A kid who has a problem will, perhaps, be more likely to spend a lot of time watching TV, reading books, playing video games, or flitting about on the computer. Other parents often wave away the worried parent's description of how much time his or her child is spending in these pursuits, reporting that their sons and daughters spend a lot of time on WOW (for example), too. But that parent is responding to a lot of little cues in her or his child - no sparkle in the eye, slumping posture, avoidance of touch, uneven sleep patterns, avoidance of talking, ducked head, avoidance of food, and on and on. We shouldn't immediately dismiss a parent's worry as mere control issues or as lack of respect for a child's interests. It could be that the parent is worried about the child for very good reasons.

I know of two teenage boys who seemed to crawl into a virtual world while disconnecting from the "real world," and in each case the mom was worried, and the mom's friends mostly tried to talk her out of worrying with anecdotes of their own computer-obsessed teens. In one case the young man was diagnosed with long-term depression; he responded to medication and talk therapy and totally turned around his life after wasting (he now says) YEARS on depressive spirals of unproductive thoughts and suicide fantasies. Thank goodness he didn't commit suicide! In the second case, the long-term depression turned to psychosis (if I remember the diagnosis correctly), and the teen threatened multiple lives, most seriously his own. He responded less well to medication, but the struggle to understand what he needed started a positive upswing, and he now lives a reasonably happy young adult life. In both cases, the young men are still gamers, but they are also functioning adults with a lot of other activities and connections.

Basically, I realized as I saw the struggles of these friends' kids, and their families, I realized that extensive use of video games may not cause problems but may indeed be a symptom of problems. We shouldn't casually dismiss parents' worries about such "retreats" from "real life."

Good point, CathyE. Thanks for making it. Playing video games (or engaging in any other activity) at the exclusion of other activities can be a symptom of something wrong, especially if there is other evidence that the person is unhappy or maladjusted. It's not the cause, but the consequence. -Peter

Dear Dr Grey, I greatly appreciate your work, and responses to comments. I'm particularly interested in what to do when your child uses screen time as a control pattern? Evident by symptoms described in above post?

My children are suffering from long term stress I am saddened to say - due to circumstances seemingly out of my control. I've had to make quite a few Robson's choices. We have had to move house many times since my 10yo was born, 5 times internationally, have financial stress, little support, and marital discord and therefore mental ill health of parents.

Mrs. Simmons, it's not possible for me to comment with any authority on specific cases, but you might find the thoughts in the next blog post in this series helpful, here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201202/video-game-addiction-does-it-occur-if-so-why

That was a very thought provoking article. I am a fan of computers, and have whiled away many an hour playing games on them. I am also an homeschooling parent of 2 who is working to implement Choice Theory and Alfie Kohn's ideas into the way we approach our children's lives.

I find it difficult to believe that there are no studies demonstrating ill effects from prolonged use of computer games, especially those that are violent in nature. Although I enjoy gaming myself, and allow my children much access to this sort of activity, I most definitely limit their use of this technology.

As an homeschooling family, we have much time to fill throughout the day. We also live in the Pacific Northwest, where winters are long and wet and dark. Sometimes, the computer is the only activity that appeals to anyone. However, on days when I don't encourage other activity, my children have a much more difficult time getting along with each other. After hours engaged in virtual reality, it often seems hard for them to reconnect with the real world.

I am a strong believer in giving children as much choice as possible in their lives. I recognize that much of the controlling behavior we engage in as parents and teachers is for our own benefit and convenience, rather than for the ethical and intellectual development of our children. It takes a lot more dedication to work through things with kids, rather that enforce rules on kids. I approach gaming limits with this in mind.

I agree that the computer is analogous to the bow and arrow of our ancestors. I strongly believe that computer literacy is fundamental to the education of our youth. However, I am also a Massage Therapist by trade, and in my practice I try to help people recover from our great dependence on this very useful tool. Our bodies are not designed to sit for long periods; movement is life and our bodies will adapt to the activities we engage in. Sitting motionless in front of a screen for extended periods has physical repercussions in our physiology. I would also argue that such work encourages us to 'stay in our heads' and not experience our bodies. Anyone who has done extended work in front of a computer recognizes the surprise one can feel when we finally stand up and realize that our low back aches, our shoulder is sore, and a headache is coming on. The extreme focus outside of our somatic experience can have negative implications. Additionally, with intense games, there can be a lot of adrenaline coursing through the system. I find that when my son has been playing these sorts of games, he often tries to discharge the energy by roughhousing with his little sister and he is less likely to notice when he is being too rough.

I would also argue that there are many things besides games that can help a child become computer literate. My 11yo son is becoming quite adept at composing music. He bought a professional music program, and his compositions delight and amuse people. He is also learning Wordpress and knows his way around the internet. What we try to do is find the path of balance. There is room for gaming, but really, how much of your life do you want to spend doing that when there is so much else to see and do and learn?

I am deeply uncomfortable with the world of first person shooting games. The work of James Zull demonstrates how every thought we think creates physical changes in our brains. Do we want to be training our brains to accept murder and bloodshed as normal? I feel that those sorts of games, in particular, are doing a good job of raising a generation of soldiers. I am glad my son feels the same way. These games hold little appeal to him, and it bothers him that so many of his peers have unfettered access to such material. I will admit that I have played my share of Doom in the past, before children, and I remember vividly how the images would speed across my closed eyelids as I tried to fall asleep. This is not the reality I want for my children.

Nevertheless, I do not make many absolute rules. By following game ratings, we are able to avoid those sorts of games. And when my son seems to be on a particularly intense gaming bender, I will point out what I observe about how it affects his behavior. This usually helps him to make good choices. He is getting better at balancing gaming with activity, as well as with cooperative play with his sibling. This week, he declared that he was unplugging his computer for a week because he is overdoing it lately. I doubt he would have acquiesced to such a plan if it had been my idea.

Thank you! You bring up some very important points that often seem to be lacking in these types of discussions. Like you I am quite surprised there are no studies of ill effects, and I don't feel like I need research to back up what I know intuitively and see around me. I played games as a kid and remember what sort of energy they left me with afterwards. I notice how my ten year-old becomes all hyped up after a prolonged session of gaming. I notice my own body's signals after sitting in front of the computer for a certain amount of time. And I also sense the psychological effects. No studies will ever convince me that computer use bring only good things.
After reading this article today I asked my son about what he thinks about games. He loves all of them, he's a great strategist; physical games, board games, video games. He said he prefers physical games and board games because of the personal interaction, 'you don't get that with video games'. And that he tends to play video games out of boredom.

I believe Peter is correct when he says there is no evidence that violent video games inherently cause violent feelings or behavior. If this was the case, certainly youth violence wouldn't be at historic lows, as they are right now.

http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html

That said, for some kids, violent video games might trigger negative feelings. But it all depends on the individual. From your last paragraph, it sounds like you're really on top of watching your son's behavior and responding accordingly. That's the best and only thing we can do as parents, I think.

i really like these points that seriously question the isolation and addiction aspects of games without attacking, bringing up the issue for open-minded discussion. i have 3 boys. the oldest is 4. he just started being interested in games and i do not limit him. this question is of interest to me, but not of huge concern, since i will be observing my boys and their emotional and physical states and i will respond to them.

i think that if i notice my kids becoming more violent, more isolated, or have more difficult with self control or connection afterwards, my response will not be to limit the games, at least initially. i will play with them and reconnect with them and this will hopefully guide them in how to handle themselves in life when they find themselves feeling isolated, aggressive, or disconnected.

if these tactics don't work, and i find that there is a serious problem with isolation and aggression (that is not actually a symptom of a separate issue), then i will consider the possibility that games are harmful.